# Will Hillary Clinton be the next U.S. President? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 4, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557 "2015-10-04T23:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/141 "2015-10-17T03:34:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Your article makes no claim about the electoral college. Romney would have lost in 2012 if he’d won the Latino vote. > [@](#): > > Obama’s new electoral victory map included Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. These are all states Republicans used to win and all states with substantial or growing Latino electorates. Again, that is not the only reason why I do think Hillary is more likely to become president; that and the black and women’s vote. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/142 "2015-10-17T06:01:08Z")
Well let’s look at the electoral college. Colorado. Obama won it by 4%, a bit less than 114K votes 1,238,490 to 1,125,391. He won the Hispanic vote 75% to 23% and Hispanics made up 14% of the voters, or about 331K voters. If Romney had won the Hispanic vote by the margin Obama did he’d have won Colorado by over 200K votes. If he had split the vote evenly he’d have still won CO. Florida. Obama won by 1%, about 53K votes. 17% of voters were Hispanic (about 1.43 million Hispanic voters) and Obama prevailed 60 to 39%. He got about 300K more Hispanic votes in Florida than Romney and if the split was even Romney would have won Florida too. But no, coming even, or a marginal win with the Hispanic vote would not have been enough to put him over the line when he lost by 3% overall. Getting to even with Hispanics in Virginia would still have been a loss there and in New Mexico too. Still hard for a GOP candidate to win Colorado, Florida, or Virginia without doing better with Hispanic voters and pretty hard to have an electoral path that does not include more than one of those. [Lots of groups](http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls) that you can say Romney lost because of. He lost because he lost the woman vote so badly, by 7%. 52% of voters in Ohio were female and he lost them by an 11% margin. In Virginia 53% of voters were female and he he lost them by a 9 point margin. Nevada 53% female voters and Romney lost by a 16 point margin. Overall 19% of voters were 18 to 29 years old and another 27% were 30 to 44. Romney lost those groups by margins of 23 and 7% … if he significantly narrowed those margins he’s have won. Black voter turn-out overall was up but really not so dramatically - from 11% of voters in 2004 to 13% in 2008 and 2012. But yes a GOP candidate getting back up to 10% or higher Black votes without losing any of the White base turn-out or increased share would at least make the election closer. Of course some of that is the same sword cutting both ways, some Blacks who came out motivated to vote for a Black candidate and some Whites motivated to come out to vote against the same candidate. Turning to Clinton. Yes if the GOP standard bearer can, against her, make significant inroads into those groups … women, younger voters (especially Millennials), Blacks, Hispanics … without losing any turn-out or share of the the White male vote, then she might be in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/143 "2015-10-17T06:09:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Latino vote doesn’t matter. It’s the African-American vote that’s key. If turnout is lower than in the last two elections or African-Americans vote 11% or more for the GOP then the GOP candidate probably wins. Each sentence of this post is more hilarious than the one preceding it. Keep telling yourself the Latino vote doesn’t matter and whoever the D’s nominate will handily win. And the idea 11% or more of the African-American vote goes to the GOP candidate will have me guffawing well into next week! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/144 "2015-10-17T06:20:36Z")
Somewhere else in the Elections forum is an app that allows you to adjust demographic voting patterns. Use it and you’ll find that if all else is equal, the GOP still loses unless they win 70% or more of the Latino vote. Not gonna happen. AH, here it is: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics\_and\_the\_2016\_election\_scenarios.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html) If the GOP had won 45% of the Latino vote they would have lost, 289-249. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/145 "2015-10-17T06:24:49Z")
The easiest path to victory for Republicans is: 1. Match their historic average performance among black voters, with average black turnout. 2. Win 3% more of the white vote than in 2012. If those two things occur, then the Democrats would have to win 82% of the Latino vote to win the election. If Republicans win 4% more of the white vote, then there is no path to victory involving Latino voters for Democrats even if they win 100%. There are no plausible Republican paths to victory that involve wooing Latino voters. They would have to win 70% to win the election while all else remained equal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/146 "2015-10-17T06:28:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Somewhere else in the Elections forum is an app that allows you to adjust demographic voting patterns. Use it and you’ll find that if all else is equal, the GOP still loses unless they win 70% or more of the Latino vote. Not gonna happen. > > AH, here it is: > > [Demographics and the 2016 Election Scenarios | RealClearPolitics](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html) > > If the GOP had won 45% of the Latino vote they would have lost, 289-249. Of course it is not gonna happen, what you are claiming is the indeed the grapes are sour. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/147 "2015-10-17T06:40:08Z")
In 2004 Blacks voted GOP 11% and in 2000 10%. It is not ahistorical. And **adaher** ’s take is not without others, like [the Cook Report](http://cookpolitical.com/story/8666), who conclude similarly. > [@](#): > > … while Latinos are no doubt an important persuasion target for the GOP, they may not be the minority group most likely to determine next year’s outcome. > > Rather, the key to 2016 may be whether Hillary Clinton and Democrats can motivate African-Americans to turn out in just as big numbers without Barack Obama on the ballot. … > > … It’s tough to overstate just how critical black voters have become to today’s Democratic coalition, particularly when it comes to the Electoral College. Deconstructing exit poll data from 2012, African-American voters accounted for Obama’s entire margin of victory in seven states: Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Without these states’ 112 electoral votes, Obama would have lost decisively. African-Americans also accounted for almost all of Obama’s margin in Wisconsin. All of these states, except Maryland, will be crucial 2016 battlegrounds. > > But what about Latinos? As it turns out, Latinos accounted for Obama’s margin of victory in just four states totaling 49 electoral votes: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico. According to our number crunching, had ZERO Latinos voted in 2012, Obama would have lost the popular vote but still would have won the White House with 283 Electoral votes. Why? Because fairly or unfairly, Latino voters tend to be disproportionately clustered in states like California, Illinois, New York and Texas which simply aren’t Electoral College battlegrounds. > > To be sure, a return to pre-2008 African-American turnout levels wouldn’t necessarily doom a Hillary Clinton candidacy, but it would leave her with a whole lot less margin for error in a host of swing states. … ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/148 "2015-10-17T06:40:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The easiest path to victory for Republicans is: > > 1. Match their historic average performance among black voters, with average black turnout. > > 2. Win 3% more of the white vote than in 2012. > > If those two things occur, then the Democrats would have to win 82% of the Latino vote to win the election. If Republicans win 4% more of the white vote, then there is no path to victory involving Latino voters for Democrats even if they win 100%. > > There are no plausible Republican paths to victory that involve wooing Latino voters. They would have to win 70% to win the election while all else remained equal. That “4% more of the white vote” is not likely to happen either. [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-08/blacks-made-history-surpassing-white-voter-turnout-rates](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-08/blacks-made-history-surpassing-white-voter-turnout-rates) > [@](#): > > The number of white voters dropped by about 2 million from 2008 to 2012. That’s the only instance of a racial group showing a net decline from one presidential election to the next. > > White Decline > > From 1996 to 2012, the white share of the voting population dropped to 73.7 percent from 82.5 percent, a decline of about 9 percentage points. By comparison, the Hispanic share increased about 4 percentage points, while the black share increased about 3 percentage points. > > While the data reflect long-term demographic shifts, the study also demonstrates Democrats’ success in registering their supporters and getting them to the polls. Strong minority support helped Obama win a second term by boosting his numbers in such battleground states as Virginia, Florida, and Nevada. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/149 "2015-10-17T06:56:56Z")
Winning 4% more of ANY group is well within the realm of possibility for either party. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/150 "2015-10-17T07:13:08Z")
BTW, can’t imagine that the President’s statements on the email investigation helped Clinton. Plus it pissed off the FBI: > **[Obama’s Comments About Clinton’s Emails Rankle Some in the F.B.I. (Published...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0)** > > Angered by a “60 Minutes” interview downplaying Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal account, some F.B.I. officials say they saw a president trying, not for the first time, to sway an investigation. I guess this is why Presidents aren’t supposed to comment on ongoing investigations. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/151 "2015-10-17T07:16:54Z")
Fun app **adaher** but it does paint a pretty dire picture for the GOP candidate. I dialed Black vote share up to 11% and dropped Black turn-out from 66 to 60% AND increased Hispanic share to 44 from 27.6 and the GOP candidate still loses the electoral college. Romney had a 20 point margin among White voters - 59 to 39%. 8 points more than McCain had. Really hard to do much better in that demographic than that. Especially while losing the growing Millennial demographic. If increasing that by _another 3%_ while getting Black turn-out to both drop and GOP share to go back to 11% is the easiest path for a GOP victory then the GOP’s Presidential chances do not look so hot. Realm of the possible? Sure. But very very improbable. Is Clinton going to be significantly less appealing to White voters than Obama was? Now OTOH, if they can marginally increase the White share to just 61% (that is less than 1% increase) and achieve that 11% Black share with lower turn-out (60%) … and neither of those are outrageous … then hitting 39% Hispanic share does it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/152 "2015-10-17T07:30:48Z")
I don’t think 59% is anywhere near the peak for white voters. 65% is very achievable in the short term, especially as Democrats rush to the left and don’t even really try to woo white voters. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/153 "2015-10-17T07:33:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Winning 4% more of ANY group is well within the realm of possibility for either party. Again, it is less likely when one goes out of your wishful idea that all other groups will not compensate. What it is clear is that the white vote is in decline, the Hispanic vote is increasing and in very important battleground states. Blacks favor Clinton a lot. And it is really stretching it to assume that less women will vote for the Democrat in 2016. And we have not talked much about Millennials that as **DSeid** noted are also not going much for the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/154 "2015-10-17T07:36:52Z")
Obama’s performance among all those groups was historic. Such dominance has not held up when he hasn’t been on the ticket. As a matter of fact, the Democratic brand has been dirt in the Obama era whenever he’s not on the ticket. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/155 "2015-10-17T07:40:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Obama’s performance among all those groups was historic. Such dominance has not held up when he hasn’t been on the ticket. As a matter of fact, the Democratic brand has been dirt in the Obama era whenever he’s not on the ticket. Again, thinking that the same conditions as the mid term elections apply to the presidential ones is wishful tinkling. We already know that your last attempt failed to note that your cite had a nice table that showed how the change does not apply much to presidential contests. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/156 "2015-10-17T07:58:27Z")
Again, thinking that the same conditions as Obama elections apply to future Presidential elections is wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/157 "2015-10-17T08:10:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Again, thinking that the same conditions as Obama elections apply to future Presidential elections is wishful thinking. Nope, I based those on historical trends, The peak of white non-Hispanic voters took place in 2004 [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/census-blacks-voted-at-higher-rates-than-whites-in-2012/2013/05/08/7d24bcaa-b800-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/census-blacks-voted-at-higher-rates-than-whites-in-2012/2013/05/08/7d24bcaa-b800-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html) I have to say that it is likely that a few of those votes came from whites opposed to a black president. After that historical peak the white vote is fading and there is less of a reason that it will as high because indeed Obama is not the candidate but most likely a white woman. The historical trend is even more noticeable among the black voters. > [@](#): > > In terms of participation rates, the Census survey said that 66 percent of eligible black voters turned out last November, compared to 64 percent of eligible white voters. In the course of three presidential elections, from 2004 to 2012, black participation has gone from seven points lower than white participation to two points higher. As for the Women vote: > [@](#): > > Women continued to vote at higher rates than men in 2012, as they have consistently in past elections. Among the overall electorate, women outpaced men by about 4 percentage points. Among African Americans, the gender gap was almost 9 percentage points. Against that you do have indeed only wishes. And the longer Trump stays ahead the worse it will be for the Republicans once Biden is no longer lowering the numbers for Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/158 "2015-10-17T10:19:55Z")
[QUOTE=HuffPo] For a second time, Obama’s new electoral victory map included Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. These are all states Republicans used to win and all states with substantial or growing Latino electorates. [/QUOTE] While I’d agree with HuffPo about Florida, Colorado, and especially Virginia (the one Southern state Jimmy Carter didn’t win), New Mexico has gone Dem in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections, with the exception being 2004, when Bush won it by just a few thousand votes. It had been trending Dem before Obama came along. Nevada has been a bit of a bellweather lately, having voted for the winner in every election from 1980 on. But Bush won the state by pretty small margins both times (nearly identical 21,597 and 21,500 margins), so it had also been somewhat trending Dem, though not nearly as strongly as NM, pre-Obama. Obama took advantage of something that was already happening in both these states, with the help of the new GOP antipathy towards Latinos that became visible when the GOP rebelled against Bush’s immigration reform proposal during his second term. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/159 "2015-10-17T10:34:13Z")
Virginia didn’t go blue because of Latinos. It did so because of African-Americans. If African-Americans vote in 2016 the way they did in 2004, then Virginia flips red again. If republicans had gotten 45% of the Latino vote in Virginia they still would have lost it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/160 "2015-10-17T11:27:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Winning 4% more of ANY group is well within the realm of possibility for either party. It’s a lot harder with a large group than with a small group. The larger the group, the more diverse it tends to get, and the less likely it is that the same levers will move the entire group, because they won’t share the same concerns nearly as much. Think of it this way: while nonhispanic whites are steadily shifting towards the GOP, the GOP vote share of that very large group increased by only 3.5% between 2000 and 2012.\* The likelihood that it can be pushed _another_ 4% in that direction in just one cycle is really pretty damn small. To be plausible, you’d have to have an explanation for _why_ it would happen. They won’t be voting against the black guy anymore, so that’s out. What’s gonna move the entirety of white America 4 percentage points to the right in one cycle? (Or a big enough fraction of it a lot more to the right, so that the average is a 4% shift?) What’s tilting them way more pro-GOP or anti-Dem than in 2012? You no longer have the reversion to trend in 2012 that happened after the 2008 outlier, so there’s gotta be something new - and BIG. What is it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=9)